sumghai

Each segment should be its own individual mesh / object, as that's the only way they will be treated separately when you set them as colliders in KSP Part Tools for Unity. I don't know much about 3DS Max, since I (like most modders here) prefer to use Blender, as the tool chain leading to Unity and KSP Part Tools is somewhat more straightforward (despite its steep learning curve). Most advice on these subforums will tend to apply to Blender anyway, as it's a free open-source software, and some enterprising modders have even written tools to make life easier for modders - for instance, taniwha's Blender .mu import/export plugin, which allows modders to examine stock meshes and textures, allowing them to make "stockalike" parts.

Assuming your docking port is a 12 (or 24)-sided cylinder: Perform a boolean operation with a smaller-diameter 12 (or 24) sided cylinder of the same height as your original cylinder, to cut out the ring Next, split the cylinder into 12 (or 24 separate) wedge-like meshes Each mesh should now be convex Consider also specifying the (optional) snapRotation and snapOffset parameters for ModuleDockingNode - here's an example from a very old version of my perpetually-delayed FusTek Station Parts mod: MODULE { name = ModuleDockingNode referenceAttachNode = top nodeType = FusTek_IACBM acquireForce = 0.5 acquireRange = 0.01 captureRange = 0.01 captureMinRollDot = 0.99999 snapRotation = true snapOffset = 90 }

You'll need to downgrade to SDHI SMS v3.2.4. From v4.x onwards, I permanently integrated the engine into the Service Module to reduce part count, simplify craft assembly and ensure that the (fixed-sized) fairing panels fit properly. If I allowed the engine to be separable again, more likely than not someone will try to use a different engine, and the fairings will no longer fit.

@Дом, I'm having trouble understanding what the purpose of your thread is. Are you saying "It would be nice if the planet Kerbin in the game had nations"? Or are you specifically saying "Devs should put [your] specific countries into the game"?

Personally, dividing Kerbin up into nations doesn't add much value to the core gameplay experience of spacecraft construction, flight and mission management. Firstly, not everyone will agree on what nations to depict and where their territories lie. Even if we put it into a community vote*, there will always be some people unhappy their country got left out, while others will be offended by depictions/allegories to certain real-life countries. Leaving Kerbin's continents as a blank slate is the best compromise, as everyone can simply imagine whatever they want for their personal headcanon or scenario. Secondly, once you've divided up Kerbin into nations, what purpose does it serve in gameplay? Different Space Center start locations? Although one could have each nation offer different starting bonuses, in practice players will quickly optimize their gameplay by picking one consistent starting country, and once you gain enough funds and science through gameplay, the bonuses quickly become irrelevant. The current KSC site is also conveniently located on Kerbin's equator, and as rockets launched from there will typically have lower delta-v requirements to reach orbit, most players would (again) prefer to pick equatorial locations, making other locations (mostly) irrelevant as well. Contracts/rewards from different nations? This can already be implemented using the agency system, although other than (potentially) greater fund rewards compared to corporate agencies, there's not much else to differentiate them. More flags? Other than aesthetics, how would this be different from mods that already add flags of real and fictional countries? Kerbalnaut starting stats/quirks? With enough training, the starting stats or quirks of a Kerbalnaut recruited from certain nations will eventually become irrelevant, unless you wish to apply permanent bonuses specific to each nation (which again may lend to offensive stereotyping if Kerbals from one nation are, for example, consistently depicted as very stupid) Recovery fee/penalties for landing in a certain nation? This could get quite annoying, especially for players low on funds. Again, players would simply optimize to try and land spent stages as close to the KSC as possible, negating whatever gameplay variety that could be obtained from imposing different recovery fees for different nations. *Software development should be based on rational technical and business decisions, not popularity contests

You simply upload your original source code to your GitHub repository, the same way you uploaded your game mod files. Also, @Karrot, please only write in English here in the main forums. I understand that English is not your first language, and you are using Google or Baidu translate to read our forum posts, but I had to edit your previous post to replace the Simplified Chinese text with the original English versions. If you must type in Simplifed Chinese, we have a Chinese-only subforum.

@Karrot, as per the add-on posting rules, can you please provide the full source code for WanhuTools.dll?

Could you please verify which of the following situations apply to you? You cannot find the download link for 1.8.1 on the main KSP website You cannot log into your KSP website account You've downloaded the installer, but cannot run the executable file You've run the executable file, but your KSP installation crashes on startup You've run the executable file, but your KSP installation still shows the older 1.3.1 version

Just a friendly heads-up that SDHI SMS V4.0.2 works just fine in KSP 1.8.0, with no changes required. Be sure to update to the latest version of RealChutes! (v1.4.7.5)

I feel that hoses and tubes would share the same problems as tethers in KSP, as per my past opinions on the matter:

Interesting!

I was multi-quoting several snippets, and it seems the forum software made a mistake. I've gone ahead and rectified my original most. Also, when replying to others, don't quote the entire post (especially if it is very long) - instead, just quote the snippet you want to directly address.

[MOD - Edited thread title for clarity - titles are supposed to summarize the main message of your topic, not where you re-write your username] And now, taking off my mod hat to provide my own personal opinion... While Scott Manley may be an influential YouTube personality who helped promote and popularize the game, claiming that he is "the father of all kerbals" is too much of a stretch - Manley was never one of the developers of the game. There are a few practical reasons why KSP 2's game tutorials shouldn't be narrated: Game mechanics tweaks between updates may mean changes to the tutorial content and text, meaning Manley would need to frequently come back in to re-record his narration. KSP and KSP 2 are games with international appeal, and has been localized into different languages to cater for different markets. If Manley (or anyone) was hired as the English-language narrator, players of other languages and locales would demand that their favorite YouTubers or voice actors of their own native tongue be bought in to narrate their versions of the game as well, which would significantly increase development costs. The tutorial is a very short, initial part of the gameplay experience; once players have completed the tutorial, they will never hear the narration ever again as they would immediately skip the tutorial for any new savegames they start. As an educational game used by some schools for STEM courses, un-narrated tutorials are good for training students in vital reading comprehension skills, particularly important for those pursuing careers in science and engineering. This is why even major MMOs like Star Trek Online (which actually hired many of the original actors from the Star Trek TV shows) only have narration for short, generic dialogues and soundbites that can be recycled for future content. Game development is not a democracy. Yes, developers can take into account user feedback, bug reports and feature requests, but at the end of the day they will implement game features based on what feasibly fits into their overall vision of the game and what nets them the greatest return on financial investment.

[MOD - Moved to Add-on Discussions for the original KSP game, as the inquiry has nothing to do with the (as-yet unreleased) KSP 2. I have also edited the thread title to more clear - in the future, please use a more descriptive thread title that accurately summarizes your topic, instead of generic ones like "need help", "mod question" etc.]

Probably not. To cut a long story short, you probably saw one of my old WIP development videos on YouTube with the inflatable flotation collar prototype. I then tested variation third-party plugin options (such as Klockheed Martian Smart Parts and Icecovery's Comfortable Landing), but none of them fit my needs precisely. I also worked with Starwaster briefly on a bespoke inflatables plugin, which for a time took a life of its own and almost became a standalone inflatables mod. I might revisit the idea sometime in the future, but right now, I can't promise anything.

My main concern about multiplayer across platforms is mod support, as historically only PC releases allowed the use of mods, whereas consoles didn't.

Rest assured, the name has no meaningful relation to the real-life CSA. I simply chose it as the name of the United State-like analogue in my Kerbal headcanon, without having to resort to a more blatantly obviously "United States of Kerbal".

Oh, I've been around, and working on FusTek Station Parts veeery slowly in the background, although I tend to release updates to SDHI SMS faster because the latter mod is less complex and is therefore low-lying fruit. My time is limited these days because I've moved overseas to start a new job, in a country where (due to various nasty political reasons) I need a VPN to access the usual websites and resources I use to help with my modding projects. As for FusTek CBMs, I did a few pre-release dev builds a loong time ago, and while you can still dig through my old commits and repos for whatever old version of FusTek you want to play with, I'm holding off on my trademark progress reports until I have something more substantial to share (especially because newer updates to the base game meant I've had to rebuild FusTek repeatedly from scratch).

Hi @qq115298, please note that only English posts are allowed in the main subforums. Chinese questions should be posted in the official Chinese subforums. (@qq115298 请注意 - 在主要论坛只能用英文, 想用中文的话你必须在官方中文论坛发表主题.) As for your issue with Part Icons not showing correcting with dx11/12, please refer to the solution here:

@josselin2196 - I deliberately set up the Service Module Fairings to disallow surface attachments, because that's how it is on the real life Orion MPCV SM. If you want a Soyuz-style abort configuration, you're better off using a Soyuz mod instead.

@WarpSpeed127, In addition to @Cheesecake's questions, are you running a Sandbox, Science or Career savegame? All parts should be immediately available in Sandbox and Science, while for Career mode you need to research certain technologies to unlock all the parts.

[MOD - Moved to Add-on Discussions, as this is a question about mods rather than a release thread.]

I definitely would prefer a scanner that gradually reveals the biome overlay, rather than a magical insta-unlock part - this would nicely complement the upcoming Breaking Ground DLC's science-over-time mechanic.

Indeed. In fact, cross posting links between both the forum thread and the bugtracker issue would be beneficial to forum users, too. Users can then upvote the feedback on the bugtracker, and increase the likelihood devs take issues into consideration.

I think the best way to make use of both the Suggestions subforum and the official bugtracker is a two-pronged approach: Use the Suggestions subforum to pitch your ideas, discuss it with fellow users and hash out the details After a while, submit the idea as feedback on the official bugtracker, containing a summary/consensus of what was discussed in the forums